W.H. methane strategy next step in climate plan

The White House has gotten a mixed response from industry and a mostly positive reaction from greens since unveiling the latest step in President Barack Obama’s climate strategy: a plan for reducing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas produced by everything from natural gas development to dairy farming.

The White House estimated on Friday that the administration-wide strategy could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 90 million metric tons in 2020. Some elements of the plan could affect coal mines and landfills.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Methane, the main component of natural gas, warms the planet at 20 times the rate of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

Sharply reducing methane emissions would temper one of the main environmental objections to promoting wider use of natural gas as a more climate-friendly alternative to coal, although anti-fracking activists still complain that gas production pollutes water supplies. The White House has been open about its desire to see gas replace coal, and the president has paired natural gas with wind and solar power when discussing cleaner forms of energy that the U.S. must adopt.

Friday’s news drew applause from the Environmental Defense Fund, which has partnered with industry to slash methane emissions in the states.

“This announcement is the most recent development in a year where both the impacts and solutions from methane emissions have come into clearer focus, creating new momentum for action,” EDF President Fred Krupp said in a statement. “Methane pollution is an intense contributor to global climate change, and the White House methane strategy is a smart road map for taking on the biggest sources of emissions, including natural gas leaks from the oil and gas sector.”

But while more liberal green groups like the Sierra Club called the strategy an “important step,” they also raised some red flags about the administration’s commitment to natural gas development.

“[E]ven with the most rigorous methane controls and monitoring in place, we will still fall short of what is needed to fight climate disruption if we do not reduce our reliance on these dirty fossil fuels,” said Deborah Nardone, campaign director of the Sierra Club’s Keeping Dirty Fuels in the Ground program.

The differing responses highlight the divide within the environmental community over natural gas — and they underscore the resistance the administration faces in supporting the fossil fuel as a cleaner alternative to coal.

But White House adviser John Podesta gave strong signals earlier this month that the administration has no plans to bow to some green groups’ calls to shift away from natural gas.

“With all due respect to my friends in the environmental community, if they expect us to turn off the lights and go home, that’s sort of an impractical suggestion,” Podesta said.

Meanwhile, some in the oil and natural gas industry took issue with the plan. The American Petroleum Institute said companies have a “built-in incentive” to capture methane emissions because they can be sold for a profit — without the need for government to issue new mandates.

“Additional regulations are not necessary and could have a chilling effect on the American energy renaissance, our economy and our national security,” Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said in a statement.